General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
OK, let's search for the source of this miscommunication. When I said, in the OP, that the bridge was now 75 years old... How did you not understand that they started counting from the completion date? A baby's birthday is the day it is born not the day mommy and daddy had a tumble in the back of the Chevy.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
Same as the Forth Bridge in Scotland
Far more impressive IMO! I actually thought the Golden Gate bridge was pretty boring, to be honest... Also USS Missouri > USS Iowa IMO. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
|
Yes Gribbler, it is...
![]() First major steel cantilever (still 2nd longest in the world!) railway bridge in the world and first railway bridge with a steel superstructure. Also was the world’s longest spanning bridge at the time of its construction. Way more impressive looking than the GGB! So, in the space of 47 years, the Golden Gate bridge could only manage a measly extra 685ft!? ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
Yes Gribbler, it is... ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
Yeah, what a bunch of idiots! Why didn't they just widen the San Francisco Bay so that the Golden Gate Bridge could beat the previous record by more! ![]() I'm just saying that one was cutting edge and worthy of greatness, considering it was built in the 19th century, whereas the other was relatively modest in comparison... |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|